get_pnl

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses read-only nature explicitly ('Read-only') and describes the special response when engine is not running ('engine_not_running idle response, no error'). No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden and handles key behavioral aspects well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose/usage, return content, and special response behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, usage, return content (realized+unrealized+fees), and edge case (engine not running). No output schema exists, but description adequately describes returns. Could mention pagination or rate limits if applicable, but overall complete for a read-only tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% – both parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add new detail about parameters beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no additional value provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states 'Read PnL totals plus per-strategy breakdown', specifying verb and resource. Provides concrete usage examples ('what's my PnL' / 'how is strategy X doing today'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_positions or get_strategy_state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use the tool ('what's my PnL' / 'how is strategy X doing today'). Does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but given the clear purpose and distinct resource (PnL), the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.